Pages

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

2016 Debate Comes Down To This: The Supreme Court vs Freedom

Remember Beth Moore, one of the audience questioners during the second presidential debate between Trump and Hilary?

You may not remember her, but millions of us should be thinking about what she said.

Her question included "...the Supreme Court is perhaps the most important aspect of this election."

The Bill of Rights is on the ballot you will mark for November 8. Particularly, the First, Second, Third and Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Each will be affirmed or revised by the Court over the next few years.

Example: Far Left progressives currently on the Court interpret the Second Amendment as applying to state militias rather than individuals.

Religious Freedom has been reduced to "freedom of worship" by the progressives presently in power.

Our personal freedoms and those of our children and grandchildren hang in the balances.

The third presidential debate is tonight at 6 PM Pacific Time.

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was quoted by the Washington Post: "Many of our politicians have surrendered to the false god of judicial supremacy, which would allow blacked-robed and unelected judges the power to make law as well as enforce it."

I would add--- black robed, "tenured," unelected judges.

Huckabee was reacting to the Court's 5-4 decision that somehow the Constitution supports redefining the 5000-year-old tradition of biblical marriage to include same-sex "marriage."

While Huckabee's description of the Court does not reflect the original intent of our Founders, it does, unfortunately, reflect the Supreme Court of today.

The Court has become more activist, than judicial. Progressives see the Constitution as a "living document"---a useful tool to change society, while originalists and conservatives see the Constitution as a document to protect the founding principles and God-given freedoms that made America the great nation she has become.

In fact, it was Justice Scalia who said, "A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."

Our next president will nominate several, perhaps as many as 4 or 5 Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The nomination to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia will be the first.

The First, Second, Third, Fourth and even the Eighth Amendments to the Constitution are currently vulnerable to the collective ideology of the Supreme Court.

Fred Lucas has written an excellent, in-depth article outlining the vulnerabilities of these and other aspects of our Constitution.

I would strongly encourage you to read it.

The following is a summary of his research, including my personal comments.

The far Left progressives currently on the Supreme Court interpret the Second Amendment as applying to state militias rather than individuals.

Lucas clarifies the vulnerability of the Second Amendment to the far-Left progressive agenda. I strongly agree with him.

However, for this article, I want to primarily focus on the First Amendment.

Lucas says, "During the Obama administration, the Supreme Court voted in favor of religious freedom, in the Hobby Lobby ruling; free speech, in the Citizens United case; and for an individual's right to bear arms in the Heller case---all by just one vote."

These are all matters that most people consider to be basic constitutional freedoms.

Hillary Clinton says, "I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics."

She says, "I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we don't always do everything we can do to make possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v Wade and a women's right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality."

These are basic Democratic Party talking points, however, she is personally taking aim at allowing organizations to have free political speech during elections. The Citizens United case is personal for her.

That case involves the Federal Elections Commission trying to suppress a negative documentary about Clinton, called "Hillary the Movie."

If she is president, there will be an all out attack on Citizens United and the freedom that hangs in the balance in that case.

Trump has published a list of potential Court appointees, should he become president. All are conservative, originalist, judges "very much in the mold" of Justice Scalia.

Lucas takes a deep look at a case the Supreme Court will decide regarding "if a state can discriminate against a religious institution in providing state grants." It's the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley case of 2013. The case has deep and wide ramifications regarding religious freedom---not just "freedom of worship" as Obama and Clinton are fond of saying.

Let's take a look at the difference between the Constitution's view of "Religious Freedom" and the far Left progressive's view of Religious Freedom.

It begins with three words: "Freedom of Worship."

Last week in an op-ed in the Mormon newspaper, Deseret News , Hillary made her pitch to the Mormon's by reminding them of her commitment to religious freedom.

If you read the article, you will note she did not promise to defend American's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. That would mean she believes people have the right to live out their faith in both their personal and professional lives---a concept that she rejects.

Both she and President Obama now consistently use the phrase "right to worship," which has a much narrower meaning.

It means the right to go to church on Sunday, or whenever, and observe the quaint rituals inside your church sanctuary, but outside in the light of day, your actions must conform to government's secular orthodoxy---whatever that might be.

This is why florists, bakers, photographers, sports and media commentators, athletes and others who do not conform their speech and actions to align with the secular orthodoxy are fired, sued or both in our "progressive new world."

If you talk about your personal faith---particularly your personal "Christian faith" in public, you are said to be "proselytizing"---that too has no constitutional protection.

She does a sleight of hand with the Mormons by declaring her solidarity with them, and other religious groups, by promising them "freedom to worship" rather than what the Constitution actually provides.

Her opposition to state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA's) which are modeled after a federal act her husband signed into law, has been carried out in plain sight.

Although this legislation actually only gives religious people their day in court, she still wants no part of it.

The bottom line? If "religious fanatics" (deplorables) are told to do something that conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs, yet does not align with government mandated beliefs on marriage, the sanctity of life, ect., they must do it or be punished.

When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby's right to not provide abortion pills to their employees because of their pro-life beliefs, Hillary said she found the ruling "deeply disturbing."

A loving memo to my evangelical brothers and sisters who are piously suggesting on Facebook and elsewhere we take the high moral ground and "sit out this election" or vote for someone who may get 2 or 3% of the vote---or God forbid, vote to facilitate further attacks on our freedom of religion:

Get Real. One of 2 people is almost certain to become the next President of the United States. And they will decide who will sit on the highest court in the land. And that Court, unfortunately, has been given, in Huckabees' words "too much supremacy."

It was the late Justice Scalia who also said, "God has been very good to us. One of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done Him honor."Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful.

3 comments:

Dennis Prager wrote a great piece, that would encourage those against Trump due to his reported sexual exploits to rethink their position: "King David did much worse than privately boast about women allowing him to grope them. He had a man killed so that his adultery with the man’s wife would not be exposed. And while God was angry at, and punished, the king, God still maintained David as king and gave him a central role in Jewish history. If God shouldn’t be ashamed for supporting King David, Christians shouldn’t be ashamed for supporting Donald Trump, given the far more corrupt and destructive alternative." If God can use a donkey to alter the course a man's path, and can use adulterous murderous David to lead the nation of Israel, couldn't He use Donald Trump to turn our country back to our Constitutional roots?

This is exactly how the left deceives people (mostly their own because those of conservative persuasion already know they are lying); they claim they are for one thing but then appoint or support like minded judges who they well know will do their dirty work and then they can claim "golly, I was with you all the way in this but the courts decided differently." Example: Clinton's statement that the court decided it was unconstitutional (referring to the stop-and-frisk in New York which actually did reduce crime). Remind everyone Clinton said in one of her speeches to Wall Street that one has to have a private position and public position, presumably one for the useful idiots (that would be the American people). Her words, not mine.